avalon-phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: PR9270
Date Sun, 18 Aug 2002 07:32:55 GMT


Peter Donald wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 17:08, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>  
>
>>>It hasn't seen enough testing. Post release I will integrate the
>>>containerkit config in as default and deprecate the old format. It will
>>>then be possible to experiment with addition of things like that.
>>>      
>>>
>>How about integrating the Type DTD instread of containekit.  This will
>>ensure smoother integration between Fortress, Merlin and Phoenix.  Are
>>there really and issues with the Type DTD ?
>>    
>>
>
>Yep. The bits that differ from CK DTD (stage and extension definitions) are 
>untested in real world application and bind to container specific 
>assumptions. 
>

I disagee on this point.  The mode for extensions is based on the work 
from two independent containers.  There is nothing container specific 
about the DTD.  There is nothing containber specific about the API. 
 Going back to the question I raised - the point is - can we use a 
common DTD - forget about the API - just think about the DTD.  I've 
updated the Type DTD to cover everything in Phoenix, containerkit and 
Merlin. It represents the superset of information

>These assumptions are things I happen to disagree with and have 
>been tried before without success. Some of the things you are supporting have 
>actually been in phoenix before and after the mess they made I doubt anyone 
>would want to go back to that.
>

In practice these have been Phoenix implementation isues.  After all, 
Phoenix was not designed to suppoot the deployment of components to 
support its own bootstrap process.  Attempts to tweak Phoenix to handle 
this sort of thing were unsucessful becuae you were retrofitting 
lifestyle behaviour into the core.  In the case of Merlin and Fortress 
the management of lifestyle extensions is quite strait forward and 
relatively small in terms of code.  In the case of Merlin it has been 
validated in real applications.

However - this isnt the poiont - the question addressed the potential 
for a common DTD.

Can we forget about the API and just focus on the DTD for a moment ?


>
>You have stated that Merlin can read the CK DTD so there should be no problem 
>about interoperability. Any component that wants to interoperate will use the 
>CK DTD. 
>

Only as a subset.
Promoting containerkit DTD means that your obliging ever other container 
to handle the special case of the blockinfo DTD and the containerkit DTD 
while Phoenix conviniently ignores the Type DTD.  Would it not be more 
efficient if we all used the same DTD?

Cheers, Steve.


-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-phoenix-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message